1. Isn’t conscience the same as my own
opinions and feelings? And doesn’t everyone have the right to his or her
own conscience?

Conscience is NOT the same as your
opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings
because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the
rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or
future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and
should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not
identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment
upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature and
is identical with the Ten Commandments. Unlike the civil laws made by
legislators, or the opinions that you hold, the natural moral law is not
anything that you invent, but rather discover within yourself and is the
governing norm of your conscience. In short, Conscience is the voice of
truth within you, and your opinions need to be in harmony with that
truth. As a Catholic, you have the benefit of the Church’s teaching
authority or Magisterium endowed upon her by Christ. The Magisterium
assists you and all people of good will in understanding the natural
moral law as it relates to specific issues. As a Catholic, you have the
obligation to be correctly informed and normed by the teaching of the
Church’s Magisterium. As for your feelings, they need to be educated by
virtue so as to be in harmony with conscience’s voice of truth. In this
way, you will have a sound conscience, according to which we you will
feel guilty when you are guilty, and feel morally upright when you are
morally upright. We should strive to avoid the two opposite extremes of
a lax conscience and a scrupulous conscience. Meeting the obligation of
continually attending to this formation of conscience will increase the
likelihood that, in the actual operation or activity of conscience, you
will act with a certain conscience, which clearly perceives that a given
concrete action is a good action that was rightly done or should be
done. Being correctly informed and certain in the actual operation of
conscience is the goal of the continuing formation of conscience.
Otherwise put, you should strive to avoid being incorrectly informed and
doubtful in the actual judgment of conscience about a particular action
or omission. You should never act on a doubtful conscience.

2. Is it morally permissible to vote
for all candidates of a single party?

This would depend on the positions held
by the candidates of a single party. If any one or more of them held
positions that were opposed to the natural moral law, then it would not
be morally permissible to vote for all candidates of this one party.
Your correctly informed conscience transcends the bounds of any one
political party.

3. If I think that a pro-abortion
candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a
pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?

If a political candidate supported
abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and
euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you
to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person,
you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this
reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide
are examples of a “disqualifying issue.” A disqualifying issue is one
which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political
maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human
person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such
enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable
regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your
feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in
any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human
rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other
moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for.
You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may
not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to
understanding the point above about “disqualifying issues” is the
distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there
can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally
acceptable goal. For example, in a society’s effort to distribute the
goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate
disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether
this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish
society’s goal. In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy,
technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is
operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in
arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand,
no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the
natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical reason should always
be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that
is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral
law.

4. If I have strong feelings or
opinions in favor of a particular candidate, even if he is pro-abortion,
why may I not vote for him?

As explained in question 1 above, neither
your feelings nor your opinions are identical with your conscience.
Neither your feelings nor your opinions can take the place of your
conscience. Your feelings and opinions should be governed by your
conscience. If the candidate about whom you have strong feelings or
opinions is pro-abortion, then your feelings and opinions need to be
corrected by your correctly informed conscience, which would tell you
that it is wrong for you to allow your feelings and opinions to give
lesser weight to the fact that the candidate supports a moral evil.

5. If I may not vote for a
pro-abortion candidate, then should it not also be true that I can’t
vote for a pro-capital punishment candidate?

It is not correct to think of abortion
and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. On the one
hand, direct abortion is an intrinsic evil, and cannot be justified for
any purpose or in any circumstances. On the other hand, the Church has
always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate
temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more
specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense
against the aggressor may resort to the death penalty if no other means
of defense is sufficient. The point here is that the death penalty is
understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In
more recent times, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John
Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the
death penalty is “rare, if not virtually nonexistent.” Thus, while the
Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty
in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate
temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal
authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a “rare” case
arises that warrants the death penalty. Moreover, if such a rare case
does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societal
act of self-defense would be a *morally good action* even if it does
have the unintended and unavoidable evil effect of the death of the
aggressor. Thus, unlike the case of abortion, it would be morally
irresponsible to rule out all such “rare” possibilities a priori, just
as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty
indiscriminately.

6. If I think that a candidate who is
pro-abortion has better ideas to serve the poor, and the pro-life
candidate has bad ideas that will hurt the poor, why may I not vote for
the candidate that has the better ideas for serving the poor?

Serving the poor is not only admirable,
but also obligatory for Catholics as an exercise of solidarity.
Solidarity has to do with the sharing of both spiritual and material
goods, and with what the Church calls the preferential option for the
poor. This preference means that we have the duty to give priority to
helping those most needful, both materially and spiritually. Beginning
in the family, solidarity extends to every human association, even to
the international moral order. Based on the response to question 3
above, two important points must be made. First, when it comes to the
matter of determining how social and economic policy can best serve the
poor, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches proposed, and
therefore legitimate disagreement among voters and candidates for
office. Secondly, solidarity can never be at the price of embracing a
“disqualifying issue.” Besides, when it comes to the unborn, abortion is
a most grievous offense against solidarity, for the unborn are surely
among society’s most needful. The right to life is a paramount issue
because as Pope John Paul II says it is “the first right, on which all
the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost.”
If a candidate for office refuses solidarity with the unborn, he has
laid the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone.

7. If a candidate says that he is
personally opposed to abortion but feels the need to vote for it under
the circumstances, doesn’t this candidate’s personal opposition to
abortion make it morally permissible for me to vote for him, especially
if I think that his other views are the best for people, especially the
poor?

A candidate for office who says that he
is personally opposed to abortion but actually votes in favor of it is
either fooling himself or trying to fool you. Outside of the rare case
in which a hostage is forced against his will to perform evil actions
with his captors, a person who carries out an evil action ¾ such as
voting for abortion ¾ performs an immoral act, and his statement of
personal opposition to the moral evil of abortion is either
self-delusion or a lie. If you vote for such a candidate, you would be
an accomplice in advancing the moral evil of abortion. Therefore, it is
not morally permissible to vote for such a candidate for office, even,
as explained in questions 3 and 6 above, you think that the candidate’s
other views are best for the poor.

8. What if none of the candidates are
completely pro-life?

As Pope John Paul II explains in his
encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is
not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an
elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured
abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at
limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative
consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not
in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather
a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically,
it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote
for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or
any other moral evil at issue.

9. What if one leading candidate is
anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading
candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not
likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote
for the candidate not likely to win?

In such a case, the Catholic voter may
clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition,
the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only
benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the
purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the
leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This
decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in
question 8 above.

10. What if all the candidates from
whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting
at all? What do I do?

Obviously, one of these candidates is
going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your
best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm. However, as
explained in question 5 above, you should not place a candidate who is
pro-capital punishment (and anti-abortion) in the same moral category as
a candidate who is pro-abortion. Faced with such a set of candidates,
there would be no moral dilemma, and the clear moral obligation would be
to vote for the candidate who is pro-capital punishment, not necessarily
because he is pro-capital punishment, but because he is anti-abortion.

11. Is not the Church’s stand that
abortion must be illegal a bit of an exception? Does not the Church
generally hold that government should restrict its legislation of
morality significantly?

The Church’s teaching that abortion
should be illegal is not an exception. St. Thomas Aquinas put it this
way: “Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the
virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is
possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are
to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society
could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft
and such like.” [ emphasis added]. Abortion qualifies as a grievous
vice that hurts others, and the lack of prohibition of this evil by
society is something by which human society cannot be maintained. As
Pope John Paul II has emphasized, the denial of the right to life, in
principle, sets the stage, in principle, for the denial of all other
rights.

12. What about elected officials who
happen to be of the same party affiliation? Are they committing a sin by
being in the same party, even if they don’t advocate pro-choice views?
Are they guilty by association?

Being of the same political party as
those who advocate pro-abortion is indeed a serious evil IF I
belong to this political party IN ORDER TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF with that
party’s advocacy of pro-abortion policies. However, it can also be true
that being of such a political party has as its purpose to change the
policies of the party. Of course, if this is the purpose, one would have
to consider whether it is reasonable to think the political party’s
policies can be changed. Assuming that it is reasonable to think so,
then it would be morally justifiable to remain in that political party.
Remaining in that political party cannot be instrumental in the
advancing of pro-abortion policies (especially if I am busily striving
to change the party’s policies) as can my VOTING for candidates or for a
political party with a pro-abortion policy.

13. What about voting for a
pro-abortion person for something like state treasurer, in which case
the candidate would have no say on matters of life in the capacity of
her duties, it just happens to be her personal position. This would not
be a sin, right?

If someone were running for state
treasurer and that candidate made it a point to state publicly that he
was in favor of exterminating people over the age of 70, would you vote
for him? The fact that the candidate has that evil in his mind tells you
that there are easily other evils in his mind; and the fact that he
would publicly state it is a danger signal. If personal character
matters in a political candidate, and personal character involves the
kind of thoughts a person harbors, then such a candidate who publicly
states that he is in favor of the evil of exterminating people over the
age of 70 - or children who are unborn - has also disqualified himself
from receiving a Catholic’s vote. I would go further and say that such a
candidate, in principle - in the light of the natural law - disqualifies
himself from public office.

14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a
pro-abortion candidate?

Except in the case in which a voter is
faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in
question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would
cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion
disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because
being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's
other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is
because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified
for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate
even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become
an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows
this, then the voter sins mortally.